Mobile Phones And Danger 119
Trishank Karthik writes: "Have you been wondering whether those quirky, little, fashionable and convenient things are dangerous to you? Paranoid about cancer from mobile phones? Wanna know the latest findings? Cast your mobile phone aside for a while, read this, and have some coffee or tea."
Some thoughts... (Score:3)
Secondly, the chances are that it's not an EMR effect at all. The magnetic fields of cell phones are probably much more important than microwave emissions.
Another test (Score:1)
The group was divided in three, one group got GSM phones 900 & 1800 MHz, one NMT's and one fake mobile phones (these worked through regular wiring which was told to be for measuring purposes, as was the case for "real mobiles" too)...
...And the outcome was that all the groups had approximately the same amount of ill-effects, however the group with fake phones reported the biggest amount (by small margin) of problems.
I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to know that holding that small gadget against your ear for 30 or more minutes can cause physical problems. During the conversation a person is probably so intensively concentrated to talking that he doesn't notice the strain to his muscles this awkward position is causing. Try to hold your bare hand against your ear without the phone for half an hour and you'll know what I'm talking about...
That position probably severely hinders the blood circulation in your shoulder area and in the neck, which must have side effects to blood circulation to brain also. I think that a great deal of these headaches and other symptoms are better cured in the gym than by changing the radiation levels in the mobile phones.
IMHO.
- [VSTO]Gemini -
Re:So? (Score:2)
So, this has no bearing? (Score:1)
It isn't the talking that's dangerous. (Score:2)
Studies have shown that a person can hold up their end of a conversation without hurting their driving abilities one bit. That is, unless they are asked something that requires spacial or mathematical thought. It appears that talking and driving use different areas of the brain that can can work on seperate things without any trouble.
Driving with a cell phone is likely dangerous because of the dialing and then using one hand for the phone.
So a headset with a voicerec autodialer ought to make it perfectly safe to use a cell phone.
--------
Re:So? (Score:1)
For more reading on this topic... (Score:4)
http://www.tecsoc.org/persec/persec.htm#cell [tecsoc.org]
http://www.tecsoc.org/persec/archivepersec.htm#9 [tecsoc.org]
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society [tecsoc.org]
Washington, D.C.
low radiation phone? (Score:1)
The D00d
Re:regeneration (Score:1)
I find it funny that these people who are so worried about cell phone users being distracted spend so much time looking at what other people are doing in their cars!! They should take their own advice and keep their eyes on the road.
Risk (Score:1)
ISTR that radium was considered *the* thing to include in health drinks in the 1920's or so.
As an electrical engineer I am quite happy to let the rest of you run the safety experiments on your own brains; that is an experiment I decline to participate in.
That's your choice. However, we all take many risks in life, although most people don't generally appreciate the concept of risk, mainly because large numbers like 1:1000000 are hard to comprehend (and because the understanding of maths in the general populace is poor, but I digress).
Moderate use of a mobile (preferably with a headset) is a risk that I do personally take, given that I already happily get in my car and drive on a regular basis - even excluding my personal driving style, there is a significant, proven, risk associated with that activity - hence my annual £1000+ insurance bill :-(
A Biochemist friend of mine also cheerfully assures me that your genetic inheritance also plays a key role. Some people are simply more susceptible to these things, others less. Much as we wish to exercise control over our own mortality, we don't always get to choose...
Re:For more reading on this topic... (Score:4)
Yours,
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society [tecsoc.org]
Washington, D.C.
Yep, digital phones emit less power. (Score:2)
Second, the distance from the cell tower is going to affect the amount of power needed to transmit. Newer cell phones will probably adjust their transmission power to the minimum needed in order to maximize their battery life. As the number of cells increases to handle more traffic, the cells will get smaller, and help cut down on phone emissions.
Third, the phone's design is going to have some effect on the amount of radiation actually absorbed by your brain. A straight-up-and-down phone with the antenna right next to your head is going to fare MUCH worse than something like a StarTAC, where the antenna is angled away from your head by a couple of inches and, in fact, your head is shielded somewhat by the "flip-up" that blocks the antenna. Since the radiation obeys an inverse-square law with respect to distance, even a slight increase in antenna distance from the head drastically cuts the radiation your brain absorbs. It doesn't take much if the antenna is half an inch from your head! At 1", you'll see a quarter the radiation. At 1.5", 9X less, at 2", 16X less. And so on.
PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong on any of this! If I'm an idiot, I need to know so I don't do it again.
Sense of proportion (Score:4)
Compare this to the damage of air pollution that is very easy to spot statistically.
I am not saying that there is no risk in cellular phones, it's just a matter of proportion. We take risks every day: the risk of living in a polluted city, the risk of being hit in a car accident, the risk of being mugged etc.
I would like to have better information about the amount of risk I am taking when I use my cellular phone, but it's pretty certain that it's much lower than other risks I take every day with barely a second thought.
----
Re:Lies damn lies and statistics (Score:1)
They wear big shoes.
Reaction time and stochastic resonance (Score:2)
This is a phenomenon in which injecting noise into a weak signal can increase its detectability.
It has been shown that crayfish use this in the nerve cells of their tail hairs, possibly to improve their ability to detect vibrations from the motion of predators they are escaping. I've seen some pretty dramatic examples [umsl.edu] of low contrast images that were impossible to interpret are made very plain by adding some white noise to them.
Re:What about 900KHz and 2.4GHz? (Score:1)
Re:Use a headset! (Score:1)
Personally, I'm not so sure there will ever be conclusive results. (Or more likely, there WILL be conclusive results from a variety of sources, and they'll balance out against each other so there's no useful data.)
Re:Sense of proportion (Score:1)
Oh, horseshit.
It was public knowledge in the middle of the 20th century that smoking was dangerous to your health. In a Heinlein short story written in the 40's ("If This Goes On..."), there's a reference to smoking being bad for you (followed by a defense straight from the Tobacco industry's future playbook, where the character states it is his RIGHT to choose to smoke and kill himself if he wants to). In fact, according to http://www.tobacco.org/History/Tobacco_History.htm l:
1761: HEALTH: ENGLAND: John Hill performs perhaps first clinical study of tobacco effects, warns snuff users they are vulnerable to cancers of the nose.
17-freaking-61! Was that 20 years ago? How about this one?
1912: HEALTH: First strong connection made between lung cancer and smoking. Dr. I. Adler is the first to strongly suggest that lung cancer is related to smoking in a monograph.
It's been known for a VERY long time that smoking causes cancer. The reason for the mealy-mouthed warnings wasn't lack of proof, it was lack of willpower on the part of the government.
And, to get back on topic, if cell phones were even a hundredth as dangerous as tobacco, it would have been obvious LONG ago. For example, when there were relatively few cell phone users out there. It's pretty clear that they aren't.
-jon
The World's Most Industrious Band (Score:2)
Things really took a turn after Keith Moon died.
More recent research summarized (Score:5)
More recently, there was a nice summary of research done over at Medscape [medscape.com] which I discussed at my website. Since I'm an oncologist and an electrical engineer, I happen to have a keen interest in the issue from both sides.
If you take a look at my comments on the matter [dyndns.org], you may find some food for thought. Basically, this sort of radiation may well pose a threat to our health, but it may do so at such a low rate and take so long to show effects that it may not even matter.
Look at smoking: if you smoke, you have a 7000% increased risk of developing some sort of aerodigestive cancer (oral cavity, larynx, esophagus, lung, etc.) as well as a much higher risk of cervical cancer in women, increased risk of skin cancers, bladder cancer, pancreatic cancer, yadda yadda yadda. That data was easy to find and tease out due to the incredible rarity of these tumors in nonsmokers.
However, now you're talking about much more rare tumors, and not a very large rate of increased risk. You don't even need statistics to see that smoking has a high association with cancer, but when you look at human tumors that only affect 1 in 100,000 people, then try to see if the rate is 2 in 100,000 among those exposed (or, as is more likely, 1.1 in 100,000 among those exposed) you are in a different world. You will need amazingly large populations in order to show a statistically significant difference of even 100% higher risk. And then, even if you do, your research is subject to criticism because you aren't going to be able to do a randomized trial. All retrospective, cohort, or other nonrandomized trials can be picked apart by either the phone manufacturers or consumer interest groups (the two sides, as I see them, in this debate).
In the end, you also have to ask yourself if it matters to you. I know lots of patients who continue to smoke because they just damn like it, and forget trying to get them to quit. They'd literally rather get another cancer than give up their favorite habit. Lots of cell phone (or insert your favorite high tech device here) users will just say to hell with it and continue to use the devices. After all, I still love to ride motorcycles, even after working in an ER. ;-)
Fermi paradox (Score:1)
EMR turns out to be destructive to civilizations in some way unknown to us. given the rate of discovery of new physics in the last century, it is foolish to suppose that there does not exist lots of new physics waiting to be discovered.
Both wrong (Score:1)
The speed of light in normal wire is about 1/2 the speed of light.
The speed of an election in a wire is on the order of a meter a minute. Think of it like a garden hose: a water molicule in the hose takes a while to get out, but if the hose is full of water turning on the valve results in instant water flow. It normally takes a while to get all the old water out of the hose before you get fresh. (This is perhaps better seen in your shower)
This is freshman physics, and I highly recomend all geeks spend a year in college taking basic science course like this one.
Re:The real issue (Score:2)
Re:Precautionary principle (Score:1)
Oh, lord. You would have been against the invention of fire.
-jon
Re:Some thoughts... (Score:2)
In fact, if you recall from your physics, a magnetic field is generated IN OPPOSITION to a changing electrical field, and vice versa. (You CANNOT induce an electrical field from an electrical field. This is why transformers use a ferrous core.)
Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is a magnetic field moving at right-angles to an electrical field. (Hence the inclusion of BOTH terms.)
Magnetic fields NOT induced by the movement of an electrical field include virtually all non-ferrous magnetic material, such as magnetostars, superconductors (where electrical fields have no meaning, in a classical sense), and all EMR of greater frequency than about mid X-Ray, which is all generated within the nucleus, and not through the collapse of electrons from one orbital to another.
(Phew! All those tech terms! And I even understand them! :)
Re:What about 900KHz and 2.4GHz? (Score:3)
No, they use *far* less transmitting power because they only need to transmit a few hundred feet.
Oooh halflife :) (Score:2)
The improvement was small--about 4 per cent.
Hmmm still not quite enough to counter the 900ms ping times i get playing halflife over my nokia
Re:Some thoughts... (Score:5)
Like water. Cellular phones (esp. PCS, around 1.9 GHz) are pretty close to the frequency that is proven effective for heating things- like microwave ovens (~2.4 GHz).
Secondly, the chances are that it's not an EMR effect at all. The magnetic fields of cell phones are probably much more important than microwave emissions.
Think about the acronyms you use before you use them- EMR - electro MAGNETIC radiation. They go together. Yes, different things affect the electical and magnetic fields differently, but magnetic fields are always generated by the motion of electric particles (since no one has found any magnetic monopoles yet, or evidence of them).
Also in Wired... (Score:1)
In my honest opinion, I'm not really bothered by such a thing. It's like smoking -- smoking HAS been proven to cause cancer, but many people still smoke (and start) every day. As the famous saying goes: "You gotta die of something."
Different phones == different side-effects ?? (Score:1)
--Just my 2 Canadian pennies
questionable danger? (Score:1)
Re:Passive Mobiling - Worse than Passive Smoking? (Score:2)
You bring up a good point, but the only other option is to move to the mountains in some remote part of the world. Its a factor of our society today..kinda ironic. Life expentancy has grown thanks to all our technology...wonder if it will start to decrease soon by the same reason?
Re:faster reactions (Score:1)
Just don't use your mobile phone to play quake using it as a modem. The latency across GSM phones is really quite scary (~1000ms)...
Re:Passive Mobiling - Worse than Passive Smoking? (Score:1)
Low Power (Score:3)
If direct experiments on tissue involving microwaves are difficult to perform because the microwaves interfere with the delicate measuring devices used in the experiments, why would anyone think that the same microwaves would have no effect on neurons - which are themselves delicate electrical measuring devices?
Most slashdotters are not old enough to remember this, but when I was growing up back in the 50's many shoe stores had these 'magic boxes' - about half the size of a refrigerator that a shoe salesman could use to check to see if your new shoes fit properly. The way the boxes worked was the child put his feet into an opening in them and the shoe salesman looked into a visor and he could see how the shoes fit by actually looking inside of them as though he had X-ray vision like Superman!
That was because he DID have X-ray vision; the 'magic boxes' were fluoroscopes driven by a powerful X-ray generator. Unlike a dental X-ray, the fluoroscopes did not use a brief burst of radiation which exposed a sensitive piece of film - they used a continuous beam of X-rays which were strong enough to light up a fluorescent screen with an image of the child's foot!. The poor salesman's head was in line with the X-ray emissions. When a bunch of 50's versions of Al Bundy started 'glowing in the dark' (yes I know biological tissue doesn't glow in the dark when exposed to X-rays) the machines were pulled out of service. My dad - who was a physics major in college - wouldn't let us get near those machines.
We may someday view mobile phones with the same horror that we view those shoe store 'magic boxes' today. As an electrical engineer I am quite happy to let the rest of you run the safety experiments on your own brains; that is an experiment I decline to participate in.
Re:it took about a million years (Score:2)
And today, there are more tobbaco smokers as a percentage of population in Britain than there were when it was written.
So, how exactly did the tobacco companies supress data released by a soverign hundreds of years before they were organized?
Steven E. Ehrbar
There's an even larger mobile phone danger: (Score:1)
I say, definetly go to this site! Even if the cause doesn't strike a chord with you, Tom and Ray Magliozzi (a.k.a. Click and Clack) will get you laughing anyway!
P.S.: I was typing this at the Wentworth Institute of Technology, and I'm still debating as to which server is slower, Wentworth's, or Slashdot's.
God, I hope So... (Score:2)
Re:The real issue (Score:1)
Conceivably, there's a safety issue in petrol stations where a spark from a mobile phone could ignite fuel vapour, but I'd have thought that it's a slim risk.
A spark? From what in the phone, exactly? I'd me far more worried about the spark from the static electricity zap you get when you get out of some fabric seats and touch the frame of the car.
A spark... from a cellphone... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...
Re:The real issue (Score:1)
Re:Low Power (Score:3)
The proof of this model comes from long axons - which have myelinated sheaths. These insulating sheaths make the cell wall much thicker - decreasing the capacitance and speeding up the nerve impulse. This also has the effect of allowing longer distances between depolarizing sites - which serve the function of a repeater; boosting signal strength.
If we made tiny wires the size of neurons which had insulation as thin as a neural cell wall, and immersed them in a conductive fluid - we couldn't get signal speeds much higher than neurons get. The tiny wires would have considerable resistance, and the thin insulators would mean they would have great distributed capacitance relative to the surrounding conductive fluid. The scale of things has a profound effect on how they work.
Headsets can be radiation-free. (Score:1)
Re:questionable danger? (Score:1)
Re:It isn't the talking that's dangerous. (Score:1)
The single deadly photon (Score:2)
Cancer can happen when a DNA strand is damaged in one of a few particular locations, turning off the growth-regulation in a cell. The cell starts to divide uncontrolled, eventually making millions of copies of itself and forming a tumor.
One microwave photon can cause this if it happens to hit the right spot. The force of the ionization of that water molecule is like a tiny explosion occuring within the DNA strand. More powerful transmissions just increase the chance that this will happen.
DNA isn't the only sensitive molecule in our bodies. There are many important proteins and ions that can be badly damaged by a stray photon at the right energy. We can't possibly stop all naturally-occuring radiation damage to our systems, but we certainly shouldn't add to it.
Motorola (Score:1)
So? (Score:3)
faster reactions (Score:1)
This is an easy way to improve your quake skills: just use a mobile phone.
Re:More recent research summarized (Score:1)
The real point of these cellphone articles is being consistently lost - we don't know yet because we need good *nonbiased* studies starting now. All of the ones to date have been done either via cellphone industry funding (the vast majority in fact) or by people with an ax to grind. Both of these are equally useful. As you note, the effects are likely to be longterm - if there are real cases happening now it's because those people happened to be the canaries in this coalmine - so the studies will need to be longterm too. It'd be nice to get a leg up on this if it does introduce real danger, instead of waiting 300 years the way we did with tobacco.
Re:Use a headset! (Score:1)
Use a headset! (Score:1)
Re:Yep, digital phones emit less power. (Score:1)
> this! If I'm an idiot, I need to know so
> I don't do it again.
I wish more people would end their posts
with a comment like this one (and BELIEVE it
too).
You were basically correct, as far as I
know (but then maybe *I* am an idiot!).
Micorwaved Mouse (Score:4)
They did admit however that they taste rather like chicken.
Hey, I like freedom! (Score:1)
Re:So? (Score:1)
ALL of my my friends have mobile phones. I am the last one to stand without one. I think It will get to a stage where you are cool if you don't have one...
Has anybody ever thought of programming an emulator of a mobile phone in a java sevlet???
Re:So? (Score:1)
Heh... (Score:2)
I am too young to remember them, but I do know of them.
All you
I support the EFF [eff.org] - do you?
What about 900KHz and 2.4GHz? (Score:3)
hmmm smells like... (Score:4)
Why?
And while the results on the activity of the brain are too new to have been subjected to the same scrutiny, the consensus is: don't panic . . . but watch this space.
Because I just can't help establishing a relation between this article that says "perhaps no" and this one [slashdot.org]:
- Phones cells are diminishing
- There are few new cellular phone features attracting people as most of them now have WAP, DATA and FAX
- People are keen on ecology provided its applications make them smarter
- New phone make people smarter
- No "low-radiation" phone have been released yet
So, I just can't help imaginating a marketer's mind: OK, if we have a doubt then there is something to sell to make peopl feel more secure.Get it ?
--
Magnetic monopoles (Score:1)
Untrue. I had MONOPOLE stored on a magnetic floppy as early as 1984. I expect many of the older folks here did as well.
Re:Use a headset! (Score:2)
regeneration (Score:2)
Just keep talking on that mobile after you've had the mandatory car accident due to yakking in traffic and you'll get back in shape in no time.
--
Violence is necessary, it is as American as cherry pie.
H. Rap Brown
Cell phones + coke = 3l33t UT (Score:1)
Yeah, cocaine will give you the same results, but, you won't see me running out and snorting. No thanks, I can afford to wait 10+ more years and watch what happens. Besides, if I had a cell phone, my job would probably be able to find me...unlike now :)
Reverse logic... (Score:1)
How to make a sig
without having an idea
Re:Scary Future (Score:1)
it took about a million years (Score:1)
No cancer (Score:1)
The Real Danger... (Score:2)
I didn't see any mention of it in the article, nor have I read any studies about it, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that automobile accident rates are higher for mobile phone users. I'm pretty sure some states/towns here in the US ban driving while talking on mobile phones. I can only imagine that's due to the danger of talking on the phone while driving.
Only if it was poorly designed, no? (Score:2)
Re:hmmm smells like... (Score:2)
- We still aren't sure that existing mobiles are safe. They may cause harm; that in itself should be enough for alternatives to be looked into. Hell, the British government banned beef on the bone because of a hypothetical risk; IMHO the risk of cooking my brain is probably higher than the supposed risk from beef on the bone.
- Lower radio emissions in general should allow things like radio telescopes to work better as the background noise will be lower. Think also of mobile phones near sensitive electronic equipment, eg, in hospitals. A lower signal wouldn't necessarily cause a problem.
This isn't to say that marketers won't promote the risk more than is actually required, of course--
Re:it took about a million years (Score:2)
--
This is not very new at all (Score:1)
NO Evidence (Score:1)
Despite the many studies that have been done, and the significant alarmist attitude of the vocal anti-radiation zealots, there is still no evidence of risk associated with the use of cell phones. Period.
So, why the stories? It does get people to read it, doesn't it? Especially when the authors play of people's paranoia ("don't panic . . . but watch this space"). Please.
Re:Once upon a time... (Score:1)
"hello? yes I'm on the train. about 20 minutes? the medication? well, I've been cutting down because the attacks haven't been as bad - I'm on quite a busy train just now, and I feel fine."
I DON'T WANT TO LISTEN TO SNIPPETS OF YOUR LIFE!!!
Re:Low Power (Score:1)
If direct experiments on tissue involving microwaves are difficult to perform because the microwaves interfere with the delicate measuring devices used in the experiments, why would anyone think that the same microwaves would have no effect on neurons - which are themselves delicate electrical measuring devices?
The way nerve tissue works is quite different to the way current flows down a wire. You can't compare the two.
Impusles are transmitted down nerve tissue by a series of depolarizations across the width of the axon (if I remember my school biology correctly, please bear with me and add detail to anything I've got wrong or missed...). It's an electrochemical effect - not at all like current down a wire. Unlike current down a wire, nerve impulses travel a lot slower than the speed of light - IIRC, less than 100 mph.
Re:It isn't the talking that's dangerous. (Score:2)
I'm a big fan of states that don't allow cell phone use while driving. The laws in these states do allow using a cell phone with a hands free set.
I've personally witnessed 3 accidents in the last year where the person at fault was on a damn cell phone. ( i know, i know, personal experiance != statistical truth, but still )
Ex-Nt-User
Re:What about 900KHz and 2.4GHz? (Score:1)
Dielectric heating. (Score:2)
Actually, this turns out not to be the case. Any insulating material will absorb EM radiation in the microwave range or at lower frequencies (and any conducting material will reflect it). While materials with an absorption band in the right place will absorb _more_ radiation per unit distance, you still get absorption no matter what you're sending the microwaves through.
Absorption is an exponential drop-off in intensity within the material. The rate of drop-off depends on the incoming signal's wavelength, which is why the older longer-wave cell phones aren't as bothered by walls as the new, higher-frequency (and shorter wavelength) cell phones.
For both types of phone, the wavelength is short enough that you'll still get a substantial amount of absorption within the user's head - which will have the sole effect of heating it up by a few thousanths of a degree. I'm not too worried.
Precautionary principle (Score:2)
I support the Precautionary Principle:
"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof."
In this context, it should be up to the industries selling such things as cellphones and wireless networks to give evidence, rather than assurances, that it is safe, and to show (including the research data) that any fears are groundless, or at least be clear on possible risks, so that we can make informed choices about what we use.
Instead, they are reaping the profits on such technology, while we the public are exposed to whatever hazards may be involved (and there may well turn out to be none, but there is a poor track record on this), while adequate reseach on hazards is not a high priority, because it does not meet the financial/economic objectives of research funders.
Getting back to the article, all it says is that "there's still no evidence that mobile phones will mangle your memories or give you cancer". That is really not good enough - it is part of the "line up the bodies" (require proof that it is harmful before doing anything to stop it) approach that is usually taken when there is big money involved.
Re:how dare you say that?! (Score:1)
I'd suggest it depends on the board of directors and the organisation's mission statement.
Re:BBC Socialist bias (Score:1)
[striking] is not the way to make policy in Britain and as far as I am concerned it never will be. This comment sounds pretty similar to Thatcher's response to the minor's strike, but this came direct from Blair's mouth on the fuel tax picketing.
Re:The single deadly photon (Score:1)
Re:So? (Score:1)
1900 MHz Myths... (Score:1)
Digital cell phones emit frequencies in the 1.9 GHz range. That's pretty damned high, and the wavelength is measured in centimeters. 15 to be almost exact.
Cell phones also emit maybe 3 watts on a low gain antenna. And most conversations are extremely short.
The real "danger range" for humans is in the VHF band, 2-meter and 125-cm.
This is according to the references courtesy the ARRL and your friendly
Memory loss... poppycock! (Score:1)
Re:Some thoughts... (Score:2)
Actually, no, the electric field is at right angles to the magnetic field- as given by one of Maxwell's laws: (del) x E = -(the partial derivative of B with respect to t) Where E is the vector electric field and B is the magnetic flux density.
Magnetic fields NOT induced by the movement of an electrical field include virtually all non-ferrous magnetic material, such as magnetostars, superconductors (where electrical fields have no meaning, in a classical sense), and all EMR of greater frequency than about mid X-Ray, which is all generated within the nucleus, and not through the collapse of electrons from one orbital to anothe
Please read my post more carefully, I did not say that magnetic fields were induced by the movement of an electrical field- all magnetic fields are induced by the movement of electric(ally charged) particles. Until you find a magnetic monopole, that will be the case. (as given by another of Maxwell's laws: (del)(dot)B=0. In your example, the electrons are moving as the atom changes state.
Look at Ampere's circuital law: (line integral)H(dot)dl=I : a line integral of static magnetic field taken about any given closed path must equal the (electrical) current enclosed by that path.
A superconductor has no magnetic field *inside* it, but there is plenty of magnetic field around it, caused by (any only by) movement of electrons in the superconductor. Actually there is no *electric* field inside a perfect conductor, either.
Something is odd. (Score:2)
Lies damn lies and statistics (Score:2)
This was met with great awe until it was explained by him that this was due to the fact that kids with larger feet are older
How does the power vary in the near field? (Score:2)
In any event, the law holds for larger distances (a foot or so)... so get a headset and put your phone on the desk or the passenger seat in your car, and you'll cut the radiation you absorb by an enormous factor.
Rats with Stress! (Score:2)
Actually, the stress comes from the rats using the cell phones to make appointments, sell/buy stock, and to try and get a date for this saturday party with morphine and barbituates!
Actually, I don't trust Cell phones yet, and will wait a few more years to see how others have reacted to them. Luckly, being a programmer, I don't have to (or want to) be connected to people 24 hours a day.
Although the article never mentioned driving and cell phones, I think that's more dangerous than anything else. I've witnessed two people blow through red lights and one women run off the road all because they were too busy chatting on their phone instead of watching the road.
Steven Rostedt
Re:Use a headset! (Score:2)
Quote: Graeme Jacobs, editor of Which? magazine said: "If you're worried about levels of radiation from your mobile phone, you shouldn't rely on a hands-free set. The two models we tested triple the radiation to your brain, though we still don't know for certain whether that radiation is harmful."
See: This article [guardianunlimited.co.uk] for details.
Baz
Re:Use a headset! (Score:2)
They're definitely a good idea if you feel you must use your phone while driving.
A lot of people, however, use headsets while their phone is in their pocket or clipped to their belt. It has been found (I forget where I read it) that just being those three feet closer to the ground means poorer reception, so the phone has to switch to a more powerful broadcast mode more often -- and this while the phone is close to your reproductive organs. How pleasant. This will also have an effect on battery life of course.
Ah, I remember the old days, when if you saw someone walking around a city street talking to themselves, they were mentally ill. Now they're probably just using the handsfree kit for their mobile...
--
Passive Mobiling - Worse than Passive Smoking? (Score:2)
But then what about mobiles?
Mobiles are so commonplace today,every second person next to you is yapping on his cell. What do you do? tell him to go outside? I think you should. Because smoking is avoidable, you can use a hnkerchief to screen out some of the smoke. But what do you do about mobiles? Use leadhelmets?
Another thing. Know Bluetooth? yeah, any device 3m away from you will have radio on it. And so, effectively, in office or any civilized area, you're fried in Radiowave. How's that.
How's that for the future?
If anything's gonna be great in the future,this place [slashdot.org] is.
BBC Health Link (Score:2)
.
Well... (Score:2)
Energy is too low...Re:Some thoughts... (Score:2)
If you want to worry about something, worry about how your driving skills decrease while you are using the microwave. The risk is orders of magnitude higher.
new meaning to 'hot head' (Score:2)
They said that the cell phones do heat the brain, but that thinking and mind exercises would do this more intensly. I wonder if that had anything to do with the fact that they also mention that when these devices are on they respondants answered 'faster'. It would make sense. If your brain is already warm then it would not have to warm up to the exercise.
Personally I think that if you have a cell phone glued to your head all the time this constant heating is going to have some effect on the brain. Probably negitive. Think about it logically , long term exposure to the sun can cause cancer if you are out tanning (skin cancer). However short term exposures don't. If you are out side each day and walk around you probably wont get skin cancer, it is only when you are in the sun for long terms. Maybe the heating of the brain by the cell phone is the same thing. Maybe what they need are long studies of several years.
I have a cell, but I uise it maybe once a week, or less. It is more of an emergency thing in case I am stranded somewhere or attacked or something. But I imagine that those people that drive , walk and use cells virtually 24/7 are at some sort of risk to brain cancer. the problem is that it would take years to prove and none of these studies has been done for more than 5 years. ;-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't want a lot, I just want it all
Flame away, I have a hose!
Re:Sense of proportion (Score:2)
For 20 years, there was never a direct link between smoking and lung cancer. Oh, sure, there were thousands of papers and reports that said such, but until only the last few years were Big Tobacco able to pay off and deflect these attacks, usually by attacking the integrity of the researchers or practices used. Thus, for 20 years, the warning on a cigarette box label always read : "Smoking *may be* hazardous to your health". We've finally gotten to the point where it is indeed hazardous to your health, and the relation between smoking and cancer is a fundamental scientific fact.
I very much doubt cel phone makers are going out and buying off or attacking anyone that does research relating tumors and cel phone radition. But this is a hint of doubt there. And since the masses generally are unable to (or are negligent in how to) access scientific literature, they depend on media (which can be bought off) for such information. A few billion dollars could easily go a long way in this area.
(Did someone say conspiracy? :D)
The real issue (Score:2)
For my part, the hype over the last few years has caused me simply not to bother about whether phones are really damaging to my health. Everyone has one, so at least we'll fry our brains en masse, if at all.
Perhaps it's not exactly on topic, but a far more worrying issue that doesn't seem to receive enough press is the distraction that mobile phones cause to their users. To my knowledge, several EU countries have already passed laws forbidding the use of mobiles while driving for example. We will never know the true statistics of fatal accidents due to mobile phones, but I'm willing to bet that they account for a lot more than we think.
That said, some of the reasons used to justify banning the use of mobile phones (e.g. on buses, in the cinema, at petrol stations (?)) are so ridiculous that it's obviously just for the reason that mobiles cause a public disturbance. How many times have YOU seen a movie projector getting shut down because the guy on the back row made a call?
Is this what I think I just read? (Score:2)
Huh?